The 5 Most Important Fire Department Law Cases of 2025

Every year brings no shortage of lawsuits involving fire departments and firefighters. Some are shocking. Some are unusual. Some dominate headlines for a few days and then quietly fade. The cases that truly matter, however, are not always the most dramatic. They are the ones that reshape legal assumptions, expose systemic vulnerabilities, or alter how courts, legislatures, and fire departments think about risk, responsibility, and authority.

The following five cases stand out in 2025, not because they are the most sensational, but because they are the most consequential in the fire service. Together, they touch nearly every corner of fire law: line-of-duty death liability, governmental immunity, medical cannabis, antitrust exposure, and recruit safety. Each one of these fire service legal lawsuits carries lessons that can influence fire department policy, firefighter training, budgeting, and litigation strategy for years to come, if we are listening.

1. Widow of Illinois firefighter awarded $31.5 million in wrongful-death trial

In November 2025, a jury returned a $31.5 million verdict in favor of the widow of a Sterling, IL, firefighter who died in the line of duty. Lt. Garrett Ramos responded as part of a mutual aid crew to a house fire in nearby Rock Falls in 2021. He fell through a floor into the basement, and despite making two mayday calls, fireground commanders did not realize he was trapped until it was too late.

Ramos’ wife filed suit against the City of Rock Falls, and a jury concluded that the failures of those fire ground commanders were wilful and wanton, and thus not subject to the immunity protection afforded to those who are merely negligent. The case is Ramos v. City of Rock Falls, and took place in Whiteside County Court.

While large verdicts are not unheard of, this one is significant because it reflects a willingness by juries to scrutinize fire department decision-making that deviates from National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. Lt. Ramos’ death stemmed from operational decisions that the plaintiff argued were preventable through proper planning, supervision, and adherence to established safety practices. The defense emphasized the inherently dangerous nature of firefighting and the unpredictability of emergency scenes. The jury was unmoved.

What makes this case important is not just the dollar amount, but the signal it sends. Courts and juries have long been willing to distinguish between unavoidable risk and preventable harm. When a firefighter’s death can be traced to command decisions, policy failures, or ignored warnings, the deference traditionally afforded to fireground discretion diminishes sharply.

For fire departments, this case underscores the legal exposure tied to training, standard operating guidelines, and enforcement. The plaintiffs’ attorneys focus not simply on the fact that something went wrong; they focused on what should have been done differently, and why leadership failed to do it. The verdict also highlights the critical role of NFPA standards and expert testimony in translating fireground decisions into concepts jurors understand—risk assessment, foreseeability, and preventability.

2. Utah Legislature moves to restore EMS immunity after Supreme Court limits it

In another pivotal development, the Utah Supreme Court issued a decision narrowing the scope of statutory immunity for emergency medical services providers. The case, Armenta v. Unified Fire Authority, was brought by a patient who called 9-1-1, was not transported, and later suffered a massive heart attack. The Unified Fire Authority sought to have the case dismissed under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (UGIA), since it only alleged negligence.

The Utah Supreme Court rejected that argument, concluding that immunity applied only when responding to a disaster, not to a simple medical call. The reaction was swift. Within weeks, the Utah Legislature moved to restore EMS immunity through statutory amendments, effectively overriding the court’s interpretation and reaffirming legislative intent to shield EMS providers from claims of ordinary negligence.

This sequence—court decision followed by legislative correction—is important for two reasons. First, it highlights how fragile immunity protections can be. Many fire and EMS agencies operate under the assumption that immunity statutes are settled law. This case demonstrates that a single appellate decision can upend that understanding overnight.

Second, it shows the tension that exists between courts and legislatures over how much protection emergency services should receive. For fire chiefs and municipal officials, the lesson is clear: immunity protection is not absolute, and it is not permanent. Departments should track appellate decisions closely, understand how immunity is defined in their state, and recognize that operational conduct may still be scrutinized even where immunity exists. Utah’s experience may foreshadow similar challenges—and legislative responses—in other states.

3. Virginia firefighter secures preliminary injunction on medical cannabis oil use

A Virginia firefighter made national headlines in 2025 after securing a preliminary injunction preventing his department from disciplining him for off-duty use of medical cannabis oil prescribed for a medical condition. The injunction prohibits the Hanover County Fire & EMS Department from taking disciplinary action against firefighter David Morath.

In Morath v. Hanover County, the Circuit Court of Hanover County concluded that Morath had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, particularly given Virginia’s medical cannabis protections and the absence of evidence that his use impaired job performance.

What makes this case especially important is how it fits into a broader, emerging legal consensus. Courts are increasingly distinguishing between lawful off-duty medical cannabis use and on-duty impairment. Blanket zero-tolerance policies, once considered legally safe, are now facing serious scrutiny.

This Virginia decision aligns closely with the holding in Giambrone v. Hillsborough County, a 2024 Florida case in which a firefighter prevailed after being terminated for lawful off-duty medical marijuana use. In Giambrone, the court rejected the county’s argument that federal marijuana law automatically justified discipline, emphasizing Florida’s constitutional protections for medical marijuana patients and the lack of evidence of workplace impairment.

Together, these cases reflect a consistent judicial theme: departments must show more than the mere presence of cannabis metabolites to justify adverse employment action. Fire departments retain the authority—and obligation—to prevent impairment on duty, but they can no longer rely on outdated assumptions about off-duty medical use.

For the fire service, this represents a fundamental shift. Policies must now balance safety, federal regulations, state medical cannabis laws, and disability protections. Departments that fail to modernize their policies risk costly litigation and injunctions that can limit managerial discretion.

4. La Crosse, WI, sues fire apparatus manufacturers alleging antitrust conspiracy

In a case with nationwide implications, the City of La Crosse, WI, filed suit against multiple fire apparatus manufacturers, alleging an antitrust conspiracy to artificially inflate prices and suppress competition in the fire truck market. The case, City of La Crosse v. Oshkosh Corporation et al, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Fire departments across the country are already grappling with unprecedented apparatus costs, extended delivery timelines, and limited vendor options. This lawsuit challenges the underlying market forces behind those realities, asserting that they are not merely the result of supply chain pressures or increased regulatory requirements, but of coordinated conduct in violation of antitrust laws.

If successful, the case could reshape the fire apparatus industry. It could lead to damages, injunctive relief, and structural changes in how fire trucks are priced, marketed, and sold. Even if it does not prevail on the merits, the litigation itself is likely to force unprecedented disclosure of industry practices.

For fire chiefs and municipal purchasers, the importance of this case lies in its potential ripple effects. Apparatus procurement is one of the largest capital expenditures for fire departments. Any legal development that affects pricing transparency or competition directly impacts budgets, bond approvals, and long-term fleet planning.

This case also serves as a reminder that fire departments are not just public safety agencies—they are major market participants. Legal remedies needed to address market concerns may extend well beyond traditional employment or tort law.

5. Frederick County, MD, sued for $50 million in death of fire recruit

The final case to look at from 2025 involves a $50 million lawsuit filed against Frederick County, MD, following the death of a fire recruit during training in 2023. Recruit fatalities have always been among the most legally perilous incidents for fire departments, and this case illustrates why.

Ian Strickler died during a physical training session, which his family contends stems from a combination of extreme training conditions, inadequate medical oversight, and failures to recognize warning signs. The lawsuit alleges that the risks were foreseeable and that safeguards were either ignored or insufficient.

This case, Estate of Ian Thomas Strickler et al, v. Frederick County, et al., is important because it strikes at the heart of fire service culture. Firefighting is inherently physically demanding, and arduous training is often defended as essential preparation for the job. However, families of deceased firefighters, courts, and juries are unwilling to accept “that’s how we’ve always done it” as a legal defense.

Recruit training must be viewed through the same liability framework as other workplace activities: hazard identification, risk mitigation, supervision, and emergency response planning. Departments must be able to demonstrate not only that training needs to be rigorous, but that it is objectively reasonable in light of the risks.

The Frederick County case reinforces a trend seen nationwide. When recruits die, judges and juries will be tasked with answering hard questions about duty of care, institutional responsibility, and whether tradition outweighs safety. The answers to those questions will determine the outcome of litigation—and the future of training programs.

Looking ahead

Taken together, these five cases define the legal landscape facing the fire service in 2026. They reflect heightened accountability, evolving employment law, scrutiny of long-standing assumptions, and an expanding view of liability.

The message is not that the fire service is under attack. Rather, it is that courts, legislatures, and juries are demanding clearer justifications, better documentation, and more deliberate decision-making. Departments that understand these trends—and adapt proactively—will be far better positioned to navigate the legal challenges ahead.

As always, the most important cases are not the ones that make headlines for a day, but the ones that quietly change the rules.